this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2023
1261 points (87.9% liked)

A Boring Dystopia

9791 readers
532 users here now

Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.

Rules (Subject to Change)

--Be a Decent Human Being

--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title

--If a picture is just a screenshot of an article, link the article

--If a video's content isn't clear from title, write a short summary so people know what it's about.

--Posts must have something to do with the topic

--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.

--No NSFW content

--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] an_onanist@lemmy.world 55 points 1 year ago (4 children)

And if it turns out that the accusation Hamas was using the basement as a command post is true, is that the new bottom?

[–] not_that_guy05@lemmy.world 140 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Using the hospital for anything other than helping people is a bottom. They are both trash entities.

[–] devz0r@kbin.social 49 points 1 year ago (9 children)

And fun fact: bombing/attacking a hospital is not a war crime per the Geneva Conventions Article 52, if it is being used as a military objective.

[–] Makfreeman@lemmy.world 37 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Might be a fun fact but it is not correct. Article 52 of the fourth convention is not related to hospitals. Article 52 of the 1st additional protocol is related to hospitals and it does not mean what you are saying it does. Geneva conventions do not define war crimes, that definition is given in the ICC Rome statutes.

[–] devz0r@kbin.social 42 points 1 year ago (9 children)

Fair enough. The ICC Rome Statute specifically refers to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. But per the ICC Rome statute on war crimes, Article 8, Section 2, Subsection (b), Clause (ix), the following is a war crime: "Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected,provided they are not military objectives;"

[–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Still the collateral damage needs to be proportional and adequate measures need to be taken to minimise civillian casualties.

So at least they would need to be able to evacuate. But Israel intentionally destroyed ambulances, cut water, electricity, fuel and communications, so it is impossible to evacuate the hospital. Israel did everything to make sure the civillian casualties will be high and that is nothing but a war crime and heinous murder.

[–] kbotc@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

https://www.newarab.com/news/israel-gives-hospitals-gaza-hours-evacuate

According to the Hamas propaganda Israel literally gave a one month head start on that demand when they did not control the area around the hospital.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 27 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I mean, that makes a certain degree of sense, because if using protected places as a place to put one's military operations doesn't remove that protection, then it would become a common strategy to intentionally use vulnerable civilians as shields in that manner, and since no military is realistically going to just let their opponent attack them without a response when capable of delivering one, such a scenario would just lead to the whole idea of places like hospitals being protected being abandoned.

[–] count_dongulus@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago

That's exactly what Hamas does. No better than Al-Qaida.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] 11181514@lemm.ee 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh ok phew. I didn't know it wasn't a war crime per the Geneva convention article 52. Keep bombing those infants, baby! Woohoo!

[–] Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 1 year ago

So glad Israel is the good guy here!

[–] Sneptaur@pawb.social 9 points 1 year ago

We will have to see. Both sides have all the incentive to lie.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] yukichigai@kbin.social 30 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean what's worse: using a human shield, or deciding "nah fuck them kids shoot through them anyway."

[–] DarkGamer@kbin.social 45 points 1 year ago (36 children)

What if they were shooting your kids while hiding behind their own? Would you let them keep doing it while insisting that reprisals are off limits?

[–] rosymind@leminal.space 52 points 1 year ago (20 children)

Yeah, this is the problem I'm having with people picking sides. It's a giant crap-pile of the worst of humanity. People act like there's a good side. Nah, everything's a mess of generational hatred and I hate it all.

There needs to be a cease-fire. Hamas needs to release all hostages and then be permanently removed from power in Gaza, and Israel needs to help the Palestinians rebuild what has been destroyed, burry their dead with dignity and respect, and heavily compensate the families of those who have died.

The whole thing is out of control

[–] stewsters@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago (4 children)

There was a ceasefire, then Hamas attacked. Hard to rebuild trust after that.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Well said. The only angels here are the innocents being slaughtered. The belligerents are all devils.

load more comments (18 replies)
[–] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago

There's an infinite spectrum between "not shooting children" and "letting the other guy shoot yours"

Also, this "oh we're so much better and civilized" act really falls short when it has to be explained to you why shooting children is still bad even when you do it.

[–] yukichigai@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

False dilemma. There are ways to react that don't involve shooting children.

Even if there weren't, I wouldn't say "yeah shoot some children."

[–] DarkGamer@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

You're misrepresenting my position. It's, "yeah definitely shoot the terrorist, try to avoid shooting their hostages if you can."

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Makfreeman@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Wouldn't proportionality be a thing here? Reprisals would be acceptable if they did not result in a disproportionate loss of innocent civilians. Unfortunately it seems like Palestinian children's lives are much cheaper than Israeli lives. I hate saying it because I think all children deserve protection regardless of the actions of the people in power, be it hamas or idf.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (32 replies)
[–] TheDoctorDonna@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Still not a good reason to kill babies...

[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I would resign on the spot if I ever got an order like that. I don't care if Nazis are resurrecting Hitler in the basement of the hospital, I can't trade babies and children as acceptable collateral.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)